IS TV censorchip Unconstituional?

Started by Ushgarak5 pages
Ushgarak Paladin

Originally posted by Bardock42
Doesn't say that in the constitution of course. Still, they might believe that that's what the writer's of the constitution intended, but though their believe is final on what happens in the US, it doesn't mean that it has to be accurate.

Explain how literal reading would be worse than what we have today, please.

There's more to the fundamentals of how the US is run than just the Constitution, you know. The reason it's not in the Constitution is because the Supreme Court's role was not put into all this until some two decades later. Precedent is as important as origin, in any civilised society.

How would it be worse? Slander, libel, racial hatred, incitement to illegal (not to mention immoral) acts... even just yelling out "Fire!" in a crowded cinema and causing a stampede that gets people trampled to death... frankly that;'a a ludicrous question, there is a huge range of heinous ills that would be allowed with a literal reading.

Bardock42 Junior Member

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I'm really fuzzy on why you think the Constitution becomes irrelevant to lawmakers just because there are exceptions to it. The fact that it can be interpreted doesn't mean it will be nullified on all mattters- that's the old 'slippery slope' approach used to argue against legalising gay marriage and so on.

There also comes a point where by championing freedom of speech you have started to champion the less moral side.

The fact is it could be, which makes it much less powerful, obviously. But I guess that is a danger that comes with judicial systems.

Well, if you include such things as screaming fire in crowded cinemas and ordering death sentences for people I agree with you. But, that point is, imo, really only reached when the usage of freedom of speech probably results in the death or severe harm of another person. So, really, I'd be with the FCC if they could just bring up one case where a person died because of the word ****.

Da Pittman "Pitt Happens"

Originally posted by Bardock42
The fact is it could be, which makes it much less powerful, obviously. But I guess that is a danger that comes with judicial systems.

Well, if you include such things as screaming fire in crowded cinemas and ordering death sentences for people I agree with you. But, that point is, imo, really only reached when the usage of freedom of speech probably results in the death or severe harm of another person. So, really, I'd be with the FCC if they could just bring up one case where a person died because of the word ****.

One could argue that the use of words to influence or manipulate people into causing harm to others such as the case of calling out “Fire”, this caused a reaction to cause people harm. Others could say “that man over there raped your daughter”, they go and kill them would that be protected as well?

Bardock42 Junior Member
Originally posted by Da Pittman
One could argue that the use of words to influence or manipulate people into causing harm to others such as the case of calling out “Fire”, this caused a reaction to cause people harm. Others could say “that man over there raped your daughter”, they go and kill them would that be protected as well?

If it is found that it was likely that, that would happen and it is fabricated, maybe. Contrary to popular believe, I don't own the perfect code of law.

But I don't see what that has to do with the idea of the FCC at all. The thing is no one is forced to watch any of the programs, so it can't be harmful to you unless you choose to subject yourself to that. And incitements of hatred are covered by general laws already. So what is the constitutional point of the FCC? I mean, at least in my opinion, the first amendment was there to protect you from being censored on subjective moral basis.

Da Pittman "Pitt Happens"

Originally posted by Bardock42
If it is found that it was likely that, that would happen and it is fabricated, maybe. Contrary to popular believe, I don't own the perfect code of law.

But I don't see what that has to do with the idea of the FCC at all. The thing is no one is forced to watch any of the programs, so it can't be harmful to you unless you choose to subject yourself to that. And incitements of hatred are covered by general laws already. So what is the constitutional point of the FCC? I mean, at least in my opinion, the first amendment was there to protect you from being censored on subjective moral basis.

I think much of the idea is that if uncontrolled or regulated TV would broadcast what sells which is sex and violence. While I do agree with you that it is the right of responsibility of the parents to regulate what is watched by their kids and in the end it is their responsibility to parent their kids. The sad fact is that many do not and use the TV as a baby sitter and kids being kids will still watch what they want to and get around the parental blocks or watch it somewhere else. Many believe the constant bombardment of violent and sex on TV has an impact on youth so that is a risk to the individual and to society.

Bardock42 Junior Member

Originally posted by Da Pittman
I think much of the idea is that if uncontrolled or regulated TV would broadcast what sells which is sex and violence. While I do agree with you that it is the right of responsibility of the parents to regulate what is watched by their kids and in the end it is their responsibility to parent their kids. The sad fact is that many do not and use the TV as a baby sitter and kids being kids will still watch what they want to and get around the parental blocks or watch it somewhere else. Many believe the constant bombardment of violent and sex on TV has an impact on youth so that is a risk to the individual and to society.
If those people believe that they can stop their children from watching it. Besides, if there are that many people that don't want to see sex and violence then there would be channels. The free market, once again, would just take care of it, if what we are told is true. What the FCC is, is imposing a few people's Religious and Moral believes, on everyone.

Devil King Restricted

It's too bad that there are 2 people arguing the constitutionality of the American FCC, neither of which are Americans.

Da Pittman "Pitt Happens"

Originally posted by Bardock42
If those people believe that they can stop their children from watching it. Besides, if there are that many people that don't want to see sex and violence then there would be channels. The free market, once again, would just take care of it, if what we are told is true. What the FCC is, is imposing a few people's Religious and Moral believes, on everyone.
That is a very generalize statement, the Constitution is not clear on the subject of sex or violence so how can you expect the FCC to be. They follow the rulings of the courts and the general public, the FCC has been taken many times to court for this very issue and the courts have ruled in favor of the FCC.
Originally posted by Devil King
It's too bad that there are 2 people arguing the constitutionality of the American FCC, neither of which are Americans.
And your point is? I’m not arguing about the constitutionality of the FCC because it has already been tried and ruled that it is. If there is a new case where they push their powers or try and stretch their reach you can be sure that they will be brought back into court. The problem is that people what to say that any censorship or regulation of speech or media is unconstitutional which it is not.

Bardock42 Junior Member
Originally posted by Da Pittman
That is a very generalize statement, the Constitution is not clear on the subject of sex or violence so how can you expect the FCC to be. They follow the rulings of the courts and the general public, the FCC has been taken many times to court for this very issue and the courts have ruled in favor of the FCC.

I'm not debating whether the FCC exists or was found unconstitutional by your courts, that would be a ridiculous debate. But the FCC mandates what opinions and what language can be expressed. It's not like I am the only one that takes the constitution to mean that. The FCC has huge powers that do not protect people in any real way, but force some to give up their freedoms to express themselves. People that are not forcing anyone to hear their opinion.

Devil King Restricted
Originally posted by Da Pittman
And your point is?

That Americans are too apathetic when it comes to their own country.

Blax_Hydralisk Restricted

We really are.

As long as I have the internet I don't really care about what goes on on TV, though.

This question has just been bugging for me for awhile.

Da Pittman "Pitt Happens"

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm not debating whether the FCC exists or was found unconstitutional by your courts, that would be a ridiculous debate. But the FCC mandates what opinions and what language can be expressed. It's not like I am the only one that takes the constitution to mean that. The FCC has huge powers that do not protect people in any real way, but force some to give up their freedoms to express themselves. People that are not forcing anyone to hear their opinion.
As I have said, even in the Constitution it is not black and white and even so the FCC responds to the courts and to the general public and their regulations and guidelines is dictated more by the public then by the courts. While the FCC is stringent to some it does change and allow vast majority of “unpopular” content to be show even during peak hours. Just think how movies and TV has changed in just the last 30 years, shows like many on primetime would have been unheard of 30 years ago. What do you think should be shown, hard-core porn, live executions?
Originally posted by Devil King
That Americans are too apathetic when it comes to their own country.
Some yes and others no, that is to general to be a valid statement. Most everybody is apathetic to something that not directly involving them.

Devil King Restricted
Originally posted by Da Pittman
Some yes and others no, that is to general to be a valid statement. Most everybody is apathetic to something that not directly involving them.

Some no, far too many, yes. Of course it's a general statement, it addresses 300 million people. How many people out of those 300 million, that are eligible to vote, actually vote?

Everyone being apathetic about something is irrelevant.

Da Pittman "Pitt Happens"

Originally posted by Devil King
Some no, far too many, yes. Of course it's a general statement, it addresses 300 million people. How many people out of those 300 million, that are eligible to vote, actually vote?

Everyone being apathetic about something is irrelevant.

The reason that it is an invalid statement is that there are too many factors to account for the lack of concern. If people felt that either their vote mattered or that it directly affected them then more people would vote, you also have those that think it doesn’t matter who is in office because they are all the same and other reasons. I will agree with you that there are far to many that do not vote and I’ve always believed that if you don’t vote then you can’t b*tch.

Devil King Restricted

Nah, not really.

Da Pittman "Pitt Happens"

Originally posted by Devil King
Nah, not really.
Not really what?

Quiero Mota Member Señor

Re: IS TV censorchip Unconstituional?

I'm not bothered by a cussword getting bleeped out.

Devil King Restricted
Originally posted by Da Pittman
Not really what?

An invalid statement.

Way too many Americans don't care about how this country is run.

Da Pittman "Pitt Happens"

Originally posted by Devil King
An invalid statement.

Way too many Americans don't care about how this country is run.

Care, yes they do. Are they pro-active in the government, not as much as they should, many care more about their local government or just working from paycheck to paycheck trying to keep a roof over their head and can't see much more than that.

ragesRemorse Senior Member

unconstitutional or not, censorship is prevalent and always will be.